list_capabilities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns a JSON with tool_count and tools array, and emphasizes it is authoritative and live. While it does not detail edge cases or failure modes, it gives sufficient behavioral context for a simple inventory tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, using a bilingual format (Spanish and English). Every sentence adds purpose or usage guidance. Slight redundancy due to bilingual repetition, but still efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero params, no output schema), the description completely explains its purpose, return structure, and usage context. No gaps remain for the intended use case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage (empty). The description adds value by specifying the return format, compensating for the lack of output schema. It explains what the caller gets, which is beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is an authoritative live tool inventory listing only names. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that full descriptions already ship with tools/list, so this call confirms the surface without duplicating context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: call this to confirm the live surface or an exact tool name without re-paying for docstrings. Implicitly suggests not using it when full descriptions are needed, but no explicit when-not-to-use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.